The problem with your statement was that you are looking for subtext when there wasn’t any on my part.
Great. I’m glad he renounced them. Maybe he can then keep the word nigger out of his mouth too.
I’m surprised this is new to you.
But he wasn’t alone:
I did parse it. The problem, as I see it, is that when he’s not talking to the media, he’s talking up racist policies.
Was he talking about tax policy? Was this Southern white man who travels in conservative circles completely unaware of what the CCC stands for?
But maybe he’s just got family ties to CCC, or maybe they’re just a plague on Southern Conservatives that he’s not managed to shake; maybe that’s his only tie to advocates of segregation.
Why, then, do I find his name as an amicus curiae in a case deciding whether Bob Jones University may forbid mixed-race marriages?
In any case, this was clearly a slip of the tongue: he had no idea what Thurmond’s policies were in 1948. And when he made almost identical comments two decades earlier, he hadn’t known then, either.
(Thanks to TPM for this information; I knew I’d read before about Lott’s racist background, but they really help put it together in one place).
Again, a real apology on Lott’s part would have contained an acknowledgement of his racist past. Without such an acknowledgement, he’s apologizing for something trivial, and not at all for what he ought to be apologizing for.
Daniel
Dude, it’s Newsmax. If a black person was shot within a ten-mile radius of her location, they’d gladly suggest that she was the triggerwoman.
I’m not sure. Perhaps you could link me to the case in question.
The link you’ve provided goes to a case deciding whether Bob Jones University may retain its tax-free status while simultaneously forbidding its students to engage in mixed-race marriage.
Now, Congress would undoubtedly have the power, under the Fourteenth Amendment, to forbid such an action. But at that point in history, Congress had not done so. The IRS made the determination on its own.
But the IRS’ authority is limited by the law. The law at that time was quite clear: to hold 501©(3) status, an entity must be (1) a corporation, or community chest, fund, or foundation, (2) organized for one of the eight enumerated purposes, (3) operated on a nonprofit basis, and (4) free from involvement in lobbying activities and political campaigns.
The law does not contain any additional racial equality public policy requirement. The court permitted the IRS to impose such a policy on its own. It’s a wise and smart policy; no question. But it was beyond the IRS’s authority to impose. Congress had the authority, but had yet to act on it.
So perhaps Mr. Lott, in recognition of this, urged reversal. I would do the same in similar circumstances. It’s not for the IRS to create public policy. And it’s not for the court to permit the IRS to do so.
Sadly, the Court disagreed, placing its desire to move social racial policy forward by any means necessary above a strict reading of the law.
If the IRS had held that a pedophile’s organization, one which otherwise met the criteria, could no longer be tax-free simply because the goal was repugnant, I’d be against that decision as well. Presumably, so would then-Congressman Lott. I hope you do not impute pedophiliac motives to either of us for such a stance.
It’s not for the IRS to make public policy decisions. Nor for the courts. It was for Congress to act.
We both know that Bob Jones could not remain open if it lost its tax-free status. De jure the case was deciding what you said, but de facto my description is accurate.
In any case, it’s another example of Lott’s supporting the pro-segregationists. After awhile of his claiming that he’s supporting various segregationists for reasons unrelated to their segregationism, it starts looking a little suspicious, don’t you think?
I do not. But when you meet privately with the leaders of NAMBLA in your office, tell them that they stand for the right principles; when you praise the presidential candidate for the Boyfuckers Party and say that had we voted for him, our country would be in better shape; when you file a Friend of the Court on behalf of Michael Jackson–after awhile, I start to wonder about your motives.
Daniel
I could offer similar veiled wonderings about Mr. Byrd. Instead, I take him at his word.
As do I: because he has admitted to his previous racist tendencies. Lott doesn’t admit that he ever did anything wrong, which leads me to believe he’s not changed.
Daniel
What’s the meaning of “nothing could be farther from the truth” in his statement, then?
His statement in full was:
“A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement.”
“Nothing could be further from the truth” seems to me to have only one interpretation: “I did not embrace the discarded policies of the past.” Are you interpreting it differently?
If this is what he was saying, then he’s not admitted any wrongdoing: he’s not admitted that he’s held segregationist views. Yet his history seems to indicate strongly that he has, given his numerous, repeated, and close associations in a political context with segregationists. So his apology is for misspeaking, not for holding segregationist views.
Since I believe he has held segregationist views, and that he has never apologized for holding these views, it seems likely to me that he still holds them.
Daniel
So… “I did not embrace the discarded policies of the past” = “I do embrace the discarded policies of the past?”
Given that he’s a career politician, not necessarily what it appears to. More specifically, it means “I’m brazening this out, by making anyone who points out the evidence to the contrary look petty and small-minded. I already got forced out of the leadership for this; that’s all you’re getting from me.”
It shouldn’t be necessary to point out that it is not credible that a Mississippi pol would not know what that organization stands for. What a pol, or anyone for that matter, truly believes is reflected in his actions. Byrd not only renounced and apologized for his KKK past, he went on to support civil rights as fully as almost anyone in public service, even if he wasn’t always a speaker at rallies. Lott kept up his association with the KKK, er, excuse me, CCC, for years by comparison.
So why are you defending Lott so staunchly here? Are you perhaps sensitive about last week’s incident when a member of the board of your cherished Federalist Society made a [KKK joke about Massachusetts](http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-11-massachusetts_x.htm) to the organization’s meeting, to the laughter of the audience?
This is really old news - but Lott’s apology truly has to be seen as half-assed by any sentient human.
He’s not acknowleging that Strom Thurmond pursued a racist agenda, or that those policies were something to be ashamed about. They are merely “discarded policies of the past”, sort of like outgrown shoes. I think he picked those weaselly words to avoid giving offense either to Thurmond or to his own diehard constituents who would be angered by anything resembling a real apology.
Thanks, stpauler.
In what way are thesse words half-assed, Jackmannii and LHoD?
Republicans are so desperate to find a way to break into the Democratic monopoly on African Americans. This was one of the more hamhanded attempts, but there will be plenty more. But they just don’t get it.
In Virginia, Jerry Kilgore tried to reach out to African Americans… or at least that’s what we were supposed to think. Early on, he bought some ad time on traditionally African American radio and tv… but the ad buy was in fact so tiny in comparison to most political media buys that barely anyone heard it. The whole purpose of the exercise was to create the media buzz THAT he might be making inroads into AA communities, not to actually do so. And so on. That sort of thing is not going to cut it.
There’s a reason that Bush is at 2% approval amongst African Americans. That reason is that African Americans are far the most likely to have the sorts of of policy concerns of an urban voter, and the current Republican party is built on the disdain of all that is urban: on the ironic premise that urban = liberal elites. It’s no longer really about race: it’s about education, transportation, about government services. And Republicans are simply nto credible on any of those issues.
If they want to compete, those are exactly the issues they need to become credible on. Personally, were I a Republican strategist, education is the tough nut I’d want to crack. But phony overtures are not policy solutions, and until Republicans do something big to demonstrate the actual worth of their ideas to produce results. Give us a school choice policy that’s ACTUALLY about school choice for all Americans, instead of one that’s really just a glorified way to accelerate white flight via the tax code.
Otherwise, they’ll remain the party of clumsy, stilted photos with black kids wearing sunglasses (the famous Kilgore education mailer that African Americans derided as bizarrely Clayton Bixby-like) Or desperately trying to find some way to call Hillary Clinton a racist. And no one is going to be fooled.
His remarks at that press conference were a followup to his half-assed written apology for describing Strom Thurmond as a man who should have been elected president. Link.
After getting his dumb self in a bunch of trouble for praising Thurmond and not impressing anyone with his quickie disavowal, he says the right things at a press conference. If that and not the earlier remarks represent the definitive Trent Lott, well and good.
I put a bit more stock in what one does in an unguarded moment as opposed to a public exercise in CYA.
So you acknowledge that his press conference words are the right ones, but discount their validity because they were public and an exercise in CYA.
Yet the same could be said of Byrd and his “white nigger” comments.
I choose to take both Byrd and Lott at the face value of their words explaining themselves.
You may certainly decide that an unguarded moment is more revealing. But it seems to me you must then condemn Byrd as well. Choosing to accept Byrd’s explanations while discounting Lott’s seems to suggest a bit of bias on your part.
I see what the problem is. “I did not embrace the discarded policies of the past” refers only to the action of praising S.H., not to any racists beliefs Lott may have held in the distant past. **LHoD **wants Lott to apologize for those beliefs held long ago. Although I’m not sure what those specific beliefs were, or if they were substantially different than the beliefs of most people during those times. Are all Democrats over the age of 60 automatically exempt from an apology, if they held racists views in the distant past? Must EVERYONE apologize? I understand what he’s getting at, but I don’t see the point.
That last line suggests a wee bit of carelessness on your part, as I have nowhere stated that I “accept Byrd’s explanations”. My only comments in this thread have consisted of a couple of snarky one-liners about Byrd’s pork spending and Hillary’s doomed Senate opponent, along with a couple of posts about Lott’s half-assdom.
I await your retraction, which I’m sure will be heartfelt and which I will be able to accept at face value. 